Pets and the Planet
It would be hard to have missed the growing importance of environmental and sustainable living in recent years. Although we have been aware of the effects of fuel consumption and capitalist culture on the environment for decades, it seems that in recent years this has been pushed to the forefront of people’s minds. Whether that is because we have passed the point of no return with regards to rising global temperatures, or because the effects of climate change are becoming a reality for many countries, the environmentalist movement is growing, and people are searching for answers on how to reduce their environmental footprint.
The consequence of this has been a greater focus on the amount of greenhouse gases are consumed by everything and anything, in an attempt to enumerate environmental impact and understand what can stay and what must go if life is to continue as we know it. One of the victims of this trend has become the desire to keep pets. A study conducted by Gregory S Okin in 2017 calculated the annual carbon dioxide and methane production from cats and dogs in the US. It calculated this to be around 64 million tons annually, and it has since been suggested that pets are just another environmentally unfriendly luxury we simply should not be indulging.
Unsurprisingly, this notion has spread far and wide, with articles citing the disastrous environmental impact of having pets and observers pointing out that 64 million tons is “the equivalent of the climate impact that 13.6 million cars create in a year”. However, not only do these articles gloss over the fact that not all these cats and dogs may be domesticated; some wild and surely with the same right to use resources as humans; they also make an unusual jump in equating the environmental harm caused by the existence of other animals with that of the metal fuel-burning boxes we use to transport ourselves around.
The Human-Centred Mindset
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central and most important beings on the planet, and everything else only has value insofar as it proves of benefit to humans. It has been argued that humans will always be the centre of any ethical system, given that we are the only animals with the cognitive ability to formulate and recognise moral value; therefore any ethical system conjured up by humans, for humans, is inherently human-centric. Whether this tendency towards anthropocentrism is inevitable or not, it remains a principal flaw in the way humans attribute value and a widely recognised enemy of environmentally sustainable decision-making.
For this reason, it is important to question the logic that suggests pets are harming the environment. If the argument is solely based on the production of harmful gases, then why is the impact of a pet not being compared with the impact of a human? When you realise that the average social media user produces 414kg of CO2 per year from social media alone, then the menial 603kg of CO2 equivalent produced by cats and dogs each year (based on 63.4 million dogs and 42.7 million cats producing 64 million tons in the US) is put into perspective. Rather than focusing on pets as beings in their own right, this comparison against other man-made luxuries, such as our use of cars or social media, reveals the destructive mindset that the interests of nonhuman animals are negligible.
Critics have begun to question whether the entire environmental movement has become more anthropocentric as it has gained popularity; turning from a movement which focuses on protecting nature and its inhabitants, biodiversity and beauty, to focusing on sustaining humans culture as we currently see it. Instead of trying to protect our planet, we strive to find solutions that allow us to protect our ways of life, our brunches, our TV time, and other luxuries.
When you consider how environmental questions have become more focused on fuel alternatives, as opposed to finding enjoyment from less electricity-intensive activities; on keeping the world habitable for future generations rather than existing species; or how our pets cause ‘equal environmental harm’ to a percentage of our valuable cars; it becomes clear that the wish to fulfil human desires overshadows a genuine desire to save our planet, even now within the environmental community.
The Triviality of Numbers
The second flaw in the arguments around environmental harm caused by pets is in the method of calculating harm and a focus on CO2 and methane production. There are obvious benefits to doing such calculations, as attributing a precise figure to the issue can make it easier to comprehend and compare harms. This method has been particularly useful for understanding how different lifestyle choices impact resource consumption: eating meat versus being vegan or cycling instead of driving to name a few.
The difficulty with this approach is that things must be simplified in order to complete the calculation. Assumptions must be made as to what is directly impacted by the existence of an animal, in order to make a calculation of their carbon footprint. For instance, one may look at the average food consumption, the number of pet toys the average owner buys or the amount of methane produced by pets on a day-to-day basis. What cannot be factored into these calculations are the indirect influences a pet has on human behaviour.
Simply look again to our use of technology. TikTok has been said to be the social media platform that uses the most energy, due to its video based content and endless-scrolling model. If instead of the average 52 minutes spent on the platform, TikTok users were out walking their dogs, then each person would save 94kg of CO2 equivalent per year. Add onto this the benefits of being in nature as opposed to sitting inside, watching TV and lighting your house, or the person who chooses to have a pet instead of children, and it becomes clear how limited these calculations really are. Though useful in some circumstances, when evaluating the impact of a living being, these numbers simply do not represent environmental impact accurately.
Reimaging Environmentalism
It is no secret that pets become more than just animal companions, with around 80% of pet-owners viewing their pets as members of the family. They have wonderous benefits on our wellbeing, with elderly pet owners making 30% less trips to the doctors and countless sociological studies on the benefit they bring to our mental health.
But what has been fundamentally overlooked by the environmental movement to date, is the value our beloved pets can bring to the environmental cause. If we are to protect the planet, we must reject the anthropocentric mindset in favour of one that gives value to nature in and of itself. Having animal companions can help expand our naturally human-centred minds by inspiring an appreciation for nonhuman animals in their own right, rather than only as tools for improving human life. Particularly for children, growing up in animal households can help inculcate respect for the natural world and may be our greatest hope for fixing the broken anthropocentric narratives around sustainability.
Although comfort may come from environmental arguments that point to simple solutions, such as cutting out meat, pets, or technology, if we fail to address the mindset which is causing our destructive tendencies then we are simply treating the symptoms and not finding the cure. Instead of jumping to fault other species for our demise, perhaps it is time we found our respect and appreciation for other animals, whether wild, in our zoos or in our homes, and we may end up all the better for it.